Hayward: Demolition moratorium “not a balanced approach”

As the Mayor of America’s first settlement, I treasure the rich authenticity of Pensacola’s architectural heritage. Historic preservation is the visual and tangible conservation of our city’s cultural identity. However, the recent move to add new layers of bureaucratic review to the issuance of demolition permits is not something that I support.

When do property rights give way to preserve Pensacola’s history? That question, in one form or another, has been at the heart of the recent debate over the City’s procedures for granting demolition permits.

The questions about what to preserve and what to let go, about what areas of the city or what aged building should and shouldn’t have special review have provoked division, hard feelings and debate – those tensions foreshadow the delicate choices we will face as the economy continues to improve and more people look for new opportunities to build into build new homes and bring new businesses to Pensacola. The answers are not going to be dictated from City Hall, but rather they will come from the citizens and property owners who are most likely to be affected by more restrictive regulations.

Pensacola is substantially built out. New construction is limited to development of scattered infill properties or requires the demolition of pre-existing structures. When demolition is required, property owners must obtain a permit from the City’s Building Official. Property owners in five special review districts must first get approval from the Architectural Review Board. This extra level of review is designed to help preserve the character of the neighborhood and people who own and buy in those districts do so with the knowledge that those restrictions will apply to them.

Property owners in other areas of the city do not have those restrictions. Consequently, some believe that there is an unacceptable risk that the City will lose historical buildings. They have asked for a moratorium on demolitions in order to allow time for the Planning Board to recommend changes to how the city issues demolition permits.

The demolition of the 1901 John Sunday House in July has sparked fears about historic preservation in America’s oldest settlement. (Teniadé Broughton/Special to The Pulse)

How can we balance the interests of both sides? The first thing we can do is acknowledge that the City is not facing an epidemic of demolitions and it does not lack protections for structures that may possess historical or cultural significance.

Since the start of the year, the City has issued 52 demolition permits. Only six of those structures were over 100 years-old and two of those had been determined to be unsafe. Aside from the Sunday House, which was in a district that was already subject to additional review, none of those demolitions stirred controversy.

In order to avoid the unintended consequences of legislation, property owners need to make their voices heard. Can we afford to focus so intensely on the value of property to a neighborhood that we lose sight of the value of the property to the people who own it? Restrictions to demolitions in districts that are not subject to special review need to be requested by the owners affected, not imposed by government fiat. Calls for preservation need to come with a plan for saving the property and evidence of financial means to carry it out, otherwise they are merely obstructionist, akin to a frivolous lawsuit.

In our rush to take sides over the demolition of one house we need to be careful to avoid a result we do not want: board review that injects uncertainty and confusion into development projects, so much so, that property owners and developers abandon worthwhile projects. We risk adding layers of bureaucratic red tape to the sale and development of private property instead of creating the framework for bringing attractive properties onto the tax rolls.

We are proud of our history and thanks to organizations like UWF Historic Trust we have historical preservation measures in place. In matters of historical and cultural preservation there must be a reasonable balance and consideration of what really is best for our city. In my opinion, a moratorium in order to consider increased regulation is not a balanced approach.

17 Responses

No Tina, you are the idiot! If you don’t want change for the better then move. Property owners are the ones that spend a their hard earned money to create wealth not people like you that want everything handed to them. Society is tired of slugs like you. Here’s a thought, why don’t you just move to China or communist country so you can be equal!

Tina Rashed. You could have bought the Sunday house if you felt so strongly about it; otherwise, it is not your right to decide what should or shouldn’t happen with it as you don’t own it. Now, who is the real idiot?

Tina, my name is indeed Laake Gitchagoomee. I have lived in many areas around the world where the real estate market is so proverbially hot that it creates bidding wars. I have no doubt the seller would have been happy to sell it to the other buyer’s you mentioned. I find it interesting that the buyers you mentioned didn’t make a legitimate offer, perhaps if they did we wouldn’t be having this discussion. As far as real names goes by the way, you say that your name is Tina but I think it’s likely Ted as you appear to have an inordinate amount of testosterone running through your veins.

Considering the recent demolition of structures with significant historical value (such as the John Sunday House) which are lost for future generations of Pensacolians and visitors, it seems reasonable and prudent that a temporary moratorium be in place to discourage this again until a reassessment and better process is in place. I don’t see this approach as a problem. I see it as a good plan until a well thought out vision and strategy are laid out. Economic “Progress” will not be significantly affected in the long run, so let’s not bulldoze patience and accountability.

Here is the truth! Pearl Perkins probably did not have enough money to offset the true value of the property and it’s future use for the owner. We live in a capitalist country and it’s about making more money on investments. The John Sunday Society must not have too many members or people that really care about saving history. Oh I forgot, they were too busy marching with “Black Lives Matter”. Tina, the bottom line is you or no one else came up with a real credible offer to the land owner and he just wasn’t going to give it to you.

Mr. Coleman, I believe you also should do some fact checking. In fact a Nona Gide offer was made by a local realtor with qualifying financials. The agent did not respond and when the realtor/ proposed buyer called to ask why, he was told the property was under contract. Seems no response to the offer was necessary since the trustee for the seller was the buyer. This is one of 4 Financially secure interested parties that have shared their similar experience with the sale. Very sloppy real estate and conflicting ARB ordinance regulations doomed this house. The mayor nor any city council member did nothing to intervene to preserve this structure which was deemed of value and condition to be preserved. All that aside, you are correct in reminding us all that property rights do exist, and legal issues may result of owners are deprived of their right to use or conditionally sell property which causes them a loss by virtue of moratorium. Very fine path to weave here, and resources to identify. Hysteria is causing inadequate consideration of real processes immediately possible, and long term sustainable solution. Some individuals have exploited the situation for their personal agenda. Other true preservationists are seeking solutions and trying to educate and research specific elements for Pensacola. We all want the balance, the mayor and I just have a difference of opinion as to what balance is. Luckily, I am adult enough to agree to disagree while we all review information and define all components necessary. Moratorium without resource is risky.

Pensacola lost a very significant historical site when the John Sunday House was destroyed. The moratorium proposal is in response to that. It won’t stop people from demolition, it just puts a hold on it while historical significance is determined. Very few, if any, developers can turn a profit within months of demo to construction anyway. If they’re really interested in the community, building Pensacola, a few months isn’t a lot to ask. Once they’re destroyed, that’s it. Besides, they almost always approve demolition. The exceptions, of course, would be historically important buildings…which I’d hope a city that prizes it’s history so much would actually want to save since they’re, well, historic. But maybe we don’t really care about history after all. In that case, we should have that discussion whether or not we should put any claim on anything historic when it comes to a choice between history and money, or better put, whose history matters and whose history doesn’t matter.

The moratorium has a second hearing at council meeting sept. 15. If it passes again, it’s a go. Unless of course our Mayor vetos it. Then it goes back to council for revote. We should all be there to weigh in. Thank you for your passion Tina, and I am so sorry for what our slow-thinking city has done to your family. To the rest who advocate demolitions, drive through the Garden District in New Orleans and tell me how many of those homes could be demolished just because it’s more expensive to restore? There are plenty of suburbs built on vacant land in historic cities that you can move to if you’d prefer.